People v. Parler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Parler

30 A.D.2d 681, 291 N.Y.S.2d 890, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3809

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 10, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 681 (People v. Parler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Parler, 30 A.D.2d 681, 291 N.Y.S.2d 890, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3809 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered January 5, 1967, convicting defendant of possession of burglar’s instruments as a felony and burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, affirmed. In our opinion, proof of statements made by defendant to a private individual was not rendered inadmissible merely because that individual failed to give him the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona (384 U. S. 436). (Cf. Schaumberg v. State, 432 P. 2d 500 [Nev.]; Yates v. United States, 384 F. 2d 586; People v. Gray, 28 A D 2d 1079; People v. Horman, 29 A D 2d 569; People v. Frank, 52 Misc 2d 266.) In view of the overwhelming proof of defendant’s guilt, any error in the admission of testimony by a police officer as to a statement by defendant, in the absence of the Miranda warnings, may be disregarded under section 542 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (cf. Guyette v. State, 438 P. 2d 244 [Nev.]). Similarly, any error in the admission of testimony that defendant stood mute when asked a question did not prejudice his substantial rights and may also be disregarded as harmless (People v. Rutigliano, 261 N. Y. 103, 107). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hopkins and. Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered January 5, 1967, convicting defendant of possession of burglar’s instruments as a felony and burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, affirmed. In our opinion, proof of statements made by defendant to a private individual was not rendered inadmissible merely because that individual failed to give him the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona (384 U. S. 436). (Cf. Schaumberg v. State, 432 P. 2d 500 [Nev.]; Yates v. United States, 384 F. 2d 586; People v. Gray, 28 A D 2d 1079; People v. Horman, 29 A D 2d 569; People v. Frank, 52 Misc 2d 266.) In view of the overwhelming proof of defendant’s guilt, any error in the admission of testimony by a police officer as to a statement by defendant, in the absence of the Miranda warnings, may be disregarded under section 542 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (cf. Guyette v. State, 438 P. 2d 244 [Nev.]). Similarly, any error in the admission of testimony that defendant stood mute when asked a question did not prejudice his substantial rights and may also be disregarded as harmless (People v. Rutigliano, 261 N. Y. 103, 107). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hopkins and. Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 681, 291 N.Y.S.2d 890, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-parler-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack